Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/611/2021

Harsh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Niharika Goel

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/611/2021
Date of Institution	:	02/09/2021
Date of Decision	:	28/03/2024

 

Harsh Goyal age 28 years son of Shri Radha Krishan Goyal R/o House No.2006 E, Block 17, Sector 63, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

Versus

 

1. Kotak General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. SCO 151/152, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009.

2. Sachin Sharma, Manager Kotak General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 151/152, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

3. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No.84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

4. Deepak Jain, director Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No.84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

5. Nikhil Jain, director Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No.84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

6. Naveen Singla, Manager Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No 84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

7. Harpreet Singla, Body shop Manager, Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No.84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

8. Rahul Arora, Insurance Agent Kotak General Insurance Company, SCO 151/152, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009.

9. P.K. Bansal Inspection Head, Pee Kay & Co., House No. 1078, sector-15, Panchkula-1343113.

10. Gaganjot Kaur, Customer Relationship Head, Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Regd. office: Plot No.84, 85, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

11. IJM, Panjab Motors Private Ltd. C-19, Industrial Area, Phase- 1, Sector-57, Mohali (Punjab).

(OP No.11 deleted vide order dated 11.11.2022).

 

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Niharika Goel, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sachin Ohri, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.3 to 7 & 10.
	:	OP No.8 & 9 ex-parte.
	:	OP No.11 deleted vide order dated 11.11.2022.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased the car i.e., Mercedes Benz, for sum of Rs.43,32,900/- from OP No.3 on 30.04.2021 (Annexure C-2). The vehicle was insured with the OP No.1 & 2 and the said policy was valid from 29.04.2021 to 28.04.2024. The vehicle met with an accident on 01.06.2021 at Chandigarh to Panchkula Road. However, the vehicle was extensively damaged but since no loss of life or limb took place as such the matter was not reported to the police. The complainant looked at the damage and immediately called Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. reporting about the incident (Annexure C-7 colly). The OP No.7 confirmed that a claim was lodged with the insurance company i.e., OP No.1 & 2 for release of the claim. The OP No.3 to 6 & 7 assured him that the car will be repaired within 7-8 days and also the claim will also be released till then. The complainant was regularly following up, but the OPs on the one pretext or the other kept on delaying the genuine claim of the complainant and finally repudiated the claim on 7.7.2021 (Annexure C-13). The OPs have initially repudiated the cashless facility without any intimation that was promised to the complainant while purchasing the insurance policy. The vehicle was then got repaired by the complainant out of his own pocket and paid a whooping amount of Rs.2,45,987/-. The OPs have now refused to reimburse the claimed amount and has closed the claim on the frivolous grounds (Annexure C-16). On 20.08.2021 Kotak General Insurance Co., cancelled my policy without giving any prior notice which is mandatory under the clause ‘5a’ of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the vehicle in question was registered with temporary registration number for a period from 25.05.2021 to 24.06.2021. The stand of the complainant is that the vehicle met with an accident on 1.06.2021. However, the truth is that the vehicle in question was actually a demo vehicle and not a new vehicle. The vehicle had been shown/registered as new. The temporary registration number which was valid w.e.f. 25.05.2021 to 24.06.2021 and the vehicle in question have met with an accident or on 21.05.2021 instead of 01.06.2021. It is further stated that No FIR has been lodged on behalf of complainant against the driver of the alleged e-Rickshaw, neither any entry had been recorded in the DDR with the police officials regarding the driver of the vehicle or qua alleged accident. The story as narrated cannot be taken into consideration without tendering of any cogent evidence by the complainant in support of his case. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.     OP No.3 to 7 & 10 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the present complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law as the insurance claim is the prerogative of the insurance company strictly governed by terms and conditions of the insurance company. The payment of claim is made under the insurance policy, if the conditions are fulfilled. The dispute, if any lies in between the complainant and OP No.1, 2 & 8 i.e., insurance company. There is no question of any direct connection with the insurance company as alleged in this para of the complaint, nor the answering OPs can influence the insurance company to act in any way they are strictly covered under the terms of the policy. Answering OPs cannot influence the surveyor not can deny the claim because the claim is the prerogative of the insurance company, if the terms are fulfilled. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.8 & 9 seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.8 & 9 despite following proper procedure, therefore they were proceeded ex-parte on 07.07.2022.
5.     OP No.11 deleted vide order dated 11.11.2022.
6.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
7.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
9.     In the present case, the insurance company i.e., OP No.1 & 2 has repudiated the claim of the complainant due to non-availability of registration certificate and hence complainant is praying for the payment of repair charges after accident of the insured vehicle in question alongwith compensation & cost of litigation.
10.     It is evident from Annexure C-2, the copy of the invoice that the complainant paid hefty amount of Rs.43,32,900/- to buy the vehicle in question on 30.04.2021. Accordingly, the temporary number was to be issued there and then by the dealer itself, but the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-3, issued by the Transport Department a temporary number valid from 25.05.2021 to 24.06.2021. Interestingly, the vehicle in question is insured from 29.04.2021 to 28.04.2022 as per Annexure C-4. Now, in the present situation the main consideration is with regard to the issuance of the temporary number to the complainant’s vehicle. It is clarified by the complainant through Annexure C-9, that on the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e., 30.04.2021, the temporary certificate registration site was not working properly as intimated by the dealer. Further it has been stated that all the necessary payment and documents needed for the delivery of the car were handed over to the concerned dealer i.e., OP No.1.
11.     A careful perusal of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 reads as under:-

         “39. NECESSITY FOR REGISTRATION-No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

         Meaning thereby, it is mandatory that the purchaser/owner of the vehicle must have certificate of registration of the vehicle to ply it over the roads.

12.     In our opinion, as per guidelines of the Motor Vehicle Act, a brand new vehicle cannot be allowed to be out of the showroom/premises without the allotment of the temporary number. It is a standard practice that dealer provides the temporary registration number for vehicles which is valid for a certain limited period of time to enable the owner/buyer of the vehicle to drive the same without inviting any punishment for traffic violation as per Motor Vehicle Act till proper registration of vehicle. But in the present case in hand, the dealer has not given any temporary number to the complainant and to our utter surprise how the complainant was allowed to take the delivery of the vehicle out of the showroom to ply the same on the road. It was risky, not only for the complainant who invested huge amount of his hard-earned money to purchase the vehicle but also for the general public being against the rules of the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, in our opinion, the act of OP No.3 to 7 & 10 for not providing the temporary number for the vehicle in question and giving the delivery of the same causing risk to the complainant and general public proves deficiency in service on their part.
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.3 to 7 & 10 are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹2,45,987/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OP No.3 to 7 & 10 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP No.1,2,8 & 9, therefore, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
17.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
28/03/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member